Are we going to see tighter restrictions on guns under an Obama presidency?

Great Debates
41

Indeed. Obama has not stated that he wants to go door-to-door taking guns. He does (according to ontheissues.org) want to ban the transfer and sale of all semi-autos. That’s nearly half my collection that he wouldn’t allow my children to inherit.

Banning the Ruger 10/22 is laughable. I can’t take seriously anyone that would consider it an implement of death worthy of further government regulation. 5 gallon buckets are far more dangerous.
Someone so clueless as to want a blanket ban on a type of firearm is just showing (to many of us) a startling and unforgivable ignorance. If Obama is really that uninformed, why would I think he’s capable of making intelligent decisions about other matters? I don’t want 3 consecutive terms of “I’m right and everyone else is wrong”.

42

The premise usually given for keeping guns is fear mongering. Several here have claimed the reason for needing a gun is for self protection. Self protection from what? The vast majority of people I know do not carry a gun and somehow they have managed to make it this far just fine.

I am highly dubious of just when having a gun will protect you and without it you are done for there being no other options. When I took martial arts and was being taught disarming techniques our instructor (who understandably was quite good at self defense) said if he was mugged he’d hand over his wallet. If you are being mugged and have a gun are you going to go for the gun and hope you kill the guy before he gets you? Is killing him over the $50 in your pocket appropriate? Further I cannot see shooting someone who is stealing my TV. It would piss me off to be sure but shooting someone over it seems excessive.

The times where a weapon is in your possession and the ability to wield it for effect are few and far between unless you are law enforcement. Concealed carry? Do you often find situations running around your city to make use of your gun? Frankly if you do you should move.

By demanding legal access to guns you create an amazingly simple road for all the bad guys to get their guns. Certainly some bad guys would always manage but if guns were outright illegal they would be far harder to come by and more expensive and not generally accessible to your average thug.

Of course there are so many guns today getting rid of them would take a decade or more to filter out and perhaps a generation to really dwindle to minimal numbers but I do not know that is an argument to not try.

43

Why is that?

44

Because it’s a record of being a convicted criminal. (FTR, the reason I included diversion from a misdemeanor is to be consistent with the current CCW law where I live, where diversion from a felony can still disqualify)

45

So even though the law makes a distinction between felony and misdemeanor, you wouldn’t? No snark, just interested.

46

Does the law make a distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor in all cases? I don’t think so; I’ve seen cases in employment and confidentiality issues where a felony and misdemeanor are equally eliminating. And there are already some exceptions that treat misdemeanors more harshly for gun ownership (see domestic battery and violence, something the FOP bitterly resented IIRC). I’ve also known some career misdemeanor criminals, so to speak, who either just happened to keep avoiding a felony charge or else kept happening to find a DA who would plead them down to a misdemeanor. The brother of a college friend of mine has been arrested more than a dozen times and served at least 4 (5?) misdemeanor sentences - yet because he’s not a felon, he can still buy a gun. He’s the sort of person I have in mind when I talk about further restrictions.

In any event, it’s just an opinion, and an example of how I would trade off allowing someone more rights and abilities in return for more restrictions. I reckon one could modify the position to make it only violent misdemeanors and I’d be happy with that.

47

Fair enough and I’m aware of the exceptions (having just purchased a new Kimber Pro Carry II recently :smiley: ). I was just wondering how you would distinguish between the one-off misdemeanor (maybe two) and those folks who make it a habit or are violent. Maybe a third category (as it pertains to guns)?

48

You don’t know what until “what” happens.

The vast amount of people I know have never ever had a fire in their house, yet they have an extinguisher. Paranoid shnucks.

49

My martial arts instructor also carries. He is abundantly aware that there are some jams that martial arts can’t get you out of, and he’s a sixth degree black belt and a former USMC officer.

There’s a very big difference. The anti-gun side would have us believe that:

Concealed carry presents a grave danger to us - The truth is, concealed carriers as it’s been mentioned earlier, are more law-abiding than the populace at large, and lawfully-owned concealed handguns account for a miniscule proportion of gun crimes because criminals typically don’t bother applying for a permit.

Semi-automatic rifles and “assault weapons” present a grave danger to us - No, the majority of guns used in crimes are handguns, and usually illegal ones. Like I said before, is Washington, D.C. some kind of crime-free paradise because guns are banned?

In other words, the anti-gun side is full of shit and is using very weasely deception to try to make their point.

The pro-gun side offers real common sense. Be prepared for emergencies, just as you would be with a fire extinguisher. Learn to use a gun safely - the gun owners’ organizations in America are all about safety. Value your own life and the life of your children and loved ones, and be ready to protect them. Don’t lie down and be a victim - stand up for yourself if you’re threatened with deadly force. Having a gun at least gives you the option of defending yourself against real criminals - being unarmed, you have no options except to hope the police arrive on time.

50

A closer analogy to fire extinguishers is not guns in your house but locks on your doors.

Additionally I have never heard stories of kids finding the fire extinguisher and killing themselves or their friends or their family or their schoolmates or stories of marauding gangs wielding fire extinguishers and using them to mug people or rob banks with.

51

Bwahahaha!

So, good law abiding citizens need guns available to protect themselves from other people with guns who get them because they are available to good law abiding citizens.

Brilliant. :rolleyes:

52

Good law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves from criminals who will get guns regardless of whether or not they’re available to good law abiding citizens.

Like I said. Washington D.C. No guns available to law abiding citizens. No crime. Right?

53

You have to see why that is bogus. Not available in Washington D.C. but available with a few minute drive outside of Washington D.C.?

The problem is there are loop holes big enough to drive aircraft carriers through. What regulations exist get compromised into oblivion to get passed at all then everyone points and says, “See, those regulations are worthless.” Well, they are right but that does not mean regulation cannot work. Just NRA hamstrung legislation cannot work.

54

Nope that’s not the premise at all. It’s just a side benefit.

I happen to have a .357 I enjoy target shooting with it. It is also a reasonably good weapon against two and 4 leg intruders (black bears).

And NO the premise for keeping guns is because it’s a hobby that people enjoy. Self defense is often a side benefit. Why not take advantage of it?

The vast vast majority of gun owners don’t own guns to kill the burglar, but to hunt or target shoot. But those same gun owners that know their guns are not afraid to defend themselves if they have to.

Well I really doubt that I could have a home invasion here. That’s not why I own a few guns. But MY only other option would be to crawl ass naked into 4 feet of snow through the doggie door. It’s May now and yes, there is 4 feet of snow in the yard. It was 10dF yesterday at 6am. That’s May 2nd. Yes, I would prefer to defend my home. The options are, shall we say bordering 50/50 death outside. I’m not going to run. The is no where to go.

ok. Hey, I don’t carry. I don’t think you should need to. I also don’t mind that some people do carry. To each his own.

For me, and my Wife where we live, the idea of a break in is pretty much a non issue. We usually lock our doors when we are away. We feel very safe. I don’t have guns for defense, though I know I could use them for that.

Law enforcement will only be here to pick up the pieces.

You sure about that? I own 8 guns. Yet I didn’t buy one of them. Handed down from my father for the most part. I suspect that the are ‘legal’ and I have legal access to them.

A decade or more? Let’s see. The newest gun I have is twelve years old. It’s based on a 50 year old design. The rifles are from the ‘70’s. Nothing has changed there. Shotguns too.

100 years from now, those guns will do just as they do today.

Would you suggest that a law abiding citizen hand over history that has been given to him by his father?

55

I don’t know…I mean, I am only giving an off the cuff opinion and all, but I also, no snark intended, wonder why really a person convicted of a misdemeanor has substantially more right to trust in them than a person convicted of a felony? I mean, we could also differentiate between violent and non-violent acts, and even allow non-violent felony holders to possess. I’m not certain what the right balance is - let me propose this - set aside the case of simple possession. How about CCW holders, in return for having greatly expanded ability to carry effectively (vis, the things I proposed earlier) would have to have a totally clean misdemeanor and felony record?

(FTR, I’m seriously interested in the Ruger LCP, especially as it’s a non-blowback .380 modeled after the Keltec which folks on here have recommended), but I have had no ability to try one out.)

56

Maybe DC ought to convince Maryland and Virginia to ban cocaine, so they can finally get crack off their streets… :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

57

Obama really, really lost me with his remark about “bitter” Americans “clinging” to their guns.

I get really sick of having to choose between Democrats who want to ban guns and Republicans who want to ban abortion. I can only imagine how feminists who advocate both reproductive freedom and self-defense feel.

58

Are you suggesting cocaine manufacture is as simple as gun manufacture? That gun smuggling is as easy as cocaine smuggling?

A gram of cocaine is worth about $100. A few kilos therefore is worth a lot and relatively easy to hide in various things and attractive as a criminal enterprise.

At the price per gram of cocaine a 9mm pistol would cost $62,500.

Sounds fine to me. Standard street thugs won’t be carrying them.

59

It’s actually not that hard to make guns. Submachine guns like the Sten and PPSH were made during World War II of very cheap materials, by unskilled laborers, and cranked out by the thousands. Underground, hidden gun-shops could be set up in the United States if guns were banned, churning out low-quality black market guns, and then you’d really have a situation where “only the outlaws would have guns.”

60

Guns squirreled away in homes by collectors/enthusiasts will not, generally, find their way to the streets. I’d expect within 10 years the glut of guns on the street, in the hands of criminals, would dry up sufficiently to make what was left too valuable for those criminals to be casual with them. Just general attrition as police caught various bad guys would lower their numbers as long as no new supply was available to replace them.

As for your dad’s guns I’d be fine with gun enthusiasts storing their guns at a shooting range. If your grandpa brought back a grenade from WWI I would not buy the heirloom argument for keeping it and so too with guns.

Note I am ok with rifles remaining for hunters which would also take care of defense from animals for farmers and those living in rural areas close to nature.